Determination is the value of both the will to act and being forced to accept your destiny.
The Commandments, for example, have a religious identity. As a body of law, however, much like Thomas Jefferson said, there is a functional identity beyond superstition. It is a technical understanding of the fully assumed risk. It naturally resists believing in the so-called “existential nothingness” of life. Technically it serves to resist doing the wrong thing in the name of having the freedom to do whatever we want because “it doesn’t really matter” (which is the organized pathology I write about). By the numbers, however, there is a common indivisibility that derives from our divisible differences (pluralism) at the margin.
Remember that there is a functional pathology to a natural existence. Capitalists say, for example, that business models naturally evolve. It is a matter of replicating success. Replication is, by the numbers, an additive value–a property of pluralism. A successful model maximizes profits and minimizes costs, resulting in natural monopolies, for example, that “add to” the margin, called the “marginal product.”
Monopolies naturally destroy demand, which is what the profit margin–the marginal product–derives from. The harm done doesn’t really matter, however, according to TBTF advocates. Not because monopolies are naturally resistant–too big to fail and have money to burn–but because more productive value derives (is added) than is put in, which is a material fraud. The value added at the margin is equal to the harm done (demand destruction, which results in compounding debt to demand the supply, and if the debt does not get bigger, the margin of profit naturally declines). Its natural identity is, in the aggregate, TBTF and naturally derivative.
Schumpeter described this aggregation of the risk as creative-destruction. Advocates of the natural monopoly say it is a natural process, and like every other force of nature, the measurable effect is beyond good and evil.
Saying that capitalism is the final stage of economic development is then pathologically delusional, which then functions to naturally pave the path for improvement–supporting objective reality–naturally resisted by reactionaries as being dysfunctionally pathological, or unnatural, in the struggle to survive, which is largely determined by the numbers.
Numbers are considered to be objective because they have a strict interpretation. There are “Ten” Commandments, for example. Is it an accident or the object of a strict interpretation that “suggests” a strict liability “existing on demand?”
Whether I believe in God or not, there is an obvious, common divisibility.
To reduce the available ambivalence, scientists naturally tend to a base-ten system of measure. Without proving the existence of God, it does support, like Kant observed, the existence of a common intelligence based on a commonly distributive value. Observation of the value is not superstitious. It is real and actualized in a logically positive way, just like Positivists say it should be, without ambiguity and arguable ambivalence.
Nevertheless, using common divisibility, one-half of the whole is an irrational number. The square root of two is not one. Its identity proves to be mathematically uneven (ambiguously more than one) while its identity element is “naturally even” in the quantum form of a single thing (unambiguoulsy “one”)–being the same thing (holistic) but different (having an additive identity). Functionally (modeled in the form of the square) it is irrational but, technically (in the form of its actual use, to approximate reality, or the objective), it makes perfect sense.
Enlightenment philosophy, like that of Kant, or Thomas Jefferson, for example, emerges with a more positivist tone. Is it a coincidence that the scientific method is emerging at the same time to effectively reduce the angst of what we don’t really know without actually reducing the probable risk of actually knowing it?
We discovered an effective model for turning matter into energy, for example, but here we are worried about nuclear proliferation and mass destruction. Cogito ergo sum is more peril than promise if we don’t have the intelligence to properly use it: yielding to a commonly divisible purpose (the emergent property) that naturally advances a measurably positive outcome, approximating “objective reality” at the margin in its ideal form. Or is that just the delusional pathology of an ideological identity, alienated from objective reality, like Objectivists say 99.9% of us are, not being enlightened enough to know that it is all really arbitrary and beyond good and evil.
With the Enlightenment, the natural-identity model becomes the test of objective reality, deriving from the empirical method. “Natural rights” derive from the natural-identity model, recognizing the common divisibility that naturally obtains. At the same time, however, conservatives, like Alexander Hamilton, said that forming a more perfect union is a function of legitimate status confirmation. Wealth and power is earned and a person has the right to enjoy it any way he sees fit. This emergent class of “real” property owners (it not actually being “the king’s lands” from which all the rents properly derive) is free of the social contract and government authority. “They” now naturally occupy the domain of class and privilege–private property, which naturally determines what objective reality actually is, and anything else doesn’t really matter since they earned it, laboring to have it.
Since capitalists have a self-concept of objective reality, quite independent of what it may actually be, Jefferson was concerned about the consolidation of wealth and power being inherently unstable. Religious identity is pluralistic and rich people could demand that others conform to the proprietary concept of “objective reality.”
Today, it is more about conforming to whatever supports rich people staying rich. If climate change theory was favorable to the established consolidation of industry and markets it would not be resisted. The establishment has a lot to lose, however, in a TBTF proportion. That’s objective reality, and as far as they are concerned, nothing else really matters.
Freedom to use property any way a person wants is defended with religious fervor, and since religion is an emblem of absolute freedom to choose, accumulation of wealth and power and religious identity naturally correlate to form a functional ideology. Since it is harmful to its base, however, that identity is waning and a more useful anti-establishment, independent identity is emerging with fervor.
The fervor at the base encounters Objectivist philosophy and, again, it is a political-economic philosophy that is religiously believed and practiced. If you don’t believe in its objective reality then you are delusional–a problem to be solved, and naturally it will be solved because that is objective reality, and existing beyond good and evil, for your own good, what you think is right or wrong does not really matter.
Existing with the force of nature, Objectivists argue, it’s foolish to resist the “natural identity” argument. Just accept it and we can all get along peacefully.
“It doesn’t really matter” (existential nihilism) is not exactly the intolerance Jefferson was concerned with. Jeffersonian Republicans railed against the abusive practices of big business, like Adam Smith did, but people were especially likely to be violent over being forced into religious practices, infringing the natural right to pursue happiness.
Now (with the establishment clause well established, and since forcing religious beliefs and practices on others is really bad for business, especially in a free market environment) it is about tolerating criminal behavior because moral value is arbitrary and capricious. Maybe a person thinks that exploiting the misfortunes of others, due to the business cycle, for example, is immoral, but for the Objectivist it is nature’s way of knowing what natural identity really is, and resisting it just works up a big price to be paid.
Ayn Rand says that if we don’t pay proper tribute to the “makers” then they will hoard their wealth to conserve its natural identity. For conservatives, that’s what objective reality is, and people that think it’s not want to be “takers”–people that want to steal private property in the name of doing the right thing. Resisting criminals is the right thing to do, but not because it’s a public menace, but a private menace.
Capitalists see themselves as the determinators. They terminate the causal chain of existence and naturally deter its resistance to keep us all prosperous. Like Marco Rubio says in Reaganesque form, “Capitalism lets people get richer without making people poorer.”
No doubt that the quality of life has increased for everyone at the margin. Like Pareto observed, however, it is a relative value. The relative value is a function of memory–a comparative dialectic–and while a person can learn about the Great Depression, for example, it doesn’t really matter until the deflation monster comes for you, and since it is considered to be a naturally recurrent risk, what is the probability? Any technician can tell you that the numbers show a massive redistribution of wealth to the top income class, and since the growth of income inequality will exceed the relative value of the Great Depression at the current rate, what is the expected value?
Marco Rubio must have missed the memo on the Great Recession! (In other words–that’s just nuts! How can he, or any other Republican, have any credible, popular support?) It was the same way with Reagan saying that “capitalism lifts all boats on the rising tide.” Anybody that looks at the technical data can see that’s just completely wrong!
It is not a technical identity, then, it is ideological. It is a function of demonstrated belief that derives from a conforming incentive, which is really an inducement to organize the psychopathy, described as objective reality.
No one reasonably believes, for example, that being paid to give a lecture to a bevy of big bankers is corrupt. Nevertheless, in the big picture, it is organizationally pathological, tending to support what is “otherwise” a natural resistance. Is it just coincidence that Mrs. Clinton does not support Glass-Steagall and resists being adversarial?
Given the big picture, what is the determination (the probable motive)?
Conforming to objective reality, since the Reagan era, especially, the probability workers will not experience falling income against rising prices, and even keep a job at all, gets progressively closer to zero. That’s what the technical data shows. Even during the Clinton boom, median income was still declining. Progressives don’t want to “believe” that–but there it is, anyway!
If it’s a function of belief, then like the Sanders slogan reads–let’s have “a future we can believe in!” It’s not an ideological identity but a technical one.
If you own a small business the probability you will be employed is progressively negative as the “wealth effect” indicators go positive. If your retirement is in a 401k the probability you will not have to liquidate your assets to survive “making markets more efficient” by continuous consolidation is getting effectively closer to zero.
The determinators are determined to show you what objective reality is. Terminating your causal identity and deterring your natural resistance is job one. What is left is an effective measure of your existence–your class identity, which is described as being something you earned and not something you were coerced into. Nevertheless, you are expected to “believe” that your fate is determined by natural forces, like the business cycle, which is a natural identity telling you to work more for less.
All a person has to do to avoid being “a taker” is work more for less with each cycle. The “natural” result, like you may be doing now, is to work for nothing (having more debt than equity). You know it is completely wrong to force anybody into poverty but to the Objectivist it doesn’t really matter and that’s objective reality